Compulsory history teaching throughout the historical process in higher education and political authority

(1)

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 1074–1078

WCLTA 2010

Compulsory history teaching throughout the historical process in

higher education and political authority

Ufuk Erdem

Ardahan University, Faculty of Humanities and Letters, Department of History, Ardahan 75000, Turkey

Abstract

History having inherently a very voiceful structure is a hybrid science which places within the whole educational process from primary education to higher education and which is mostly based upon international interaction. Today, “Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution” lecture, which is compulsory in all higher education institutions and has a past as early as Turkish Republic itself, has been a cultural and educational heritage presented by Atatürk. This lecture has been under the control of state until today. State’s intervention to the name and even the contents of the lecture as an internal controller has brought about various criticisms. Those criticisms have basicly been caused due to the perception of this intervention by the political authority to the lecture. On the other hand, the state, which has continued to its intervention and been criticized because of this attitude, has evaluated the issue as a matter of regime since it has a crucial oversensitivity.

This work indicates the current situation of compulsory history lecture in higher education throughout the historical process and comprises sundry recommendations on how a more independent and actuality based history education in higher education can be achieved.

Keywords:Turkish Revolution, Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution, History of Revolutions

Introduction

Thanks to its voiceful structure, history can be described as a hybrid science which places within the whole educational process from primary education to higher education and which is mostly based upon international interaction. Although history is defined as science of the past yet it is also today’s science.

Historical consciousness is a significant phase in the meaning of the construction of nation-state within the universal validity and forming of national identity, adoption of new management. Therefore, administration of

_{Ufuk Erdem. Tel.: +90-536-887-2780; fax: +90-478-211-2973} E-mail address: erdemufuk25@hotmail.com

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

(2)

government favored to benefit from science of history for consolidation of the regime of republic and its embracement all segments of society. The aim here is to provide unity of nation-state.

The republican regime got started on revolution history to give the root of idea of revolution to higher education students. In our day, the lesson of Atatürk’s Principles and History of Revolution is taught as compulsory lesson at both faculties and graduate schools regardless of profession.

1. From the Foundation of Turkish Republic to the Present Day “Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution” Lecture

Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution course was begun to be given first at Ankara Law School1 under the name of “History of Revolutions”. When researching curriculum of school at the beginning, it can be seen that there are eleven lessons and one of them is “History of Revolutions”. This lesson was given at first by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt who was the minister of justice of the period. His standing as a lecturer of History of Revolution course among the staff of the school has not only been interesting but meaningful as well. This course had a character of being new and never taught at any other school before in anyway. After Mahmut Esat Bozkurt had left from ministry of justice, he continued to give lectures at higher education and revolution lectures attracted great interest. Yet, opportunity of listening to these lectures from radio was provided to everybody. (O÷uzo÷lu, 1966: 23). Institute of Turkish Revolution History was founded on July 31 of 1933 thanks to University Reform which was carried out in the same year. Before Instute of Turkish Revolution History was founded, news about foundation of such an institute had taken part in press. (Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 1933) When Resit Galip who was the minister of national education in this time, attempted to arrange the course of Revolution History without the notice of Atatürk, Atatürk reacted to this attempt. As a result of this reaction Reúit Galip was obliged to resign from

ministry of national education (Oral, 2001: 326-327). This event has been a crucial example due to its showing the importance given to this lecture by Atatürk. After the practises in Istanbul similar works related to teaching History of Revolution was started in Ankara as well. In March 1934, The Institute of Turkish Revolutionary History was founded at Ankara Faculty of Law and the first lecture of Turkish Revolution was taught by Prime Minister øsmet ønönü (Çapa, 2004: 44; Özüçetin and Nadar, 2010: 469) Afterwards the lecture of Revolution History was added to the curriculum of higher education institutions and at the same time it became a compulsory threshold course necessary to pass for graduating. All senior higher education students have to attend to those courses and pass the exam made at the end of the year. Those who can’t pass these exams can’t get diploma. (BaúbakanlÕk Cumhuriyet Arúivi, 030.10..142.13.4; Taser, 2006: 380.)

President øsmet ønönü has remarked the importance of the subject and enounced the explanations below during the inaugural speech of assembly on the date of November 1st of 1941 (The speech has been quoted by Nevzad Ayas, deputy of Bursa):

“Revolution courses, given as conferences in higher education institutions till now, has been decided to be taught in those institutions under the name of “Revolution History and the Regime of Turkish Republic” as an essential lecture and also founding an institute of Revolution History and Turkish Republic for making scientific researches upon those matters and spreading them.” (TBMM ZabÕt Ceridesi, 3.4.1942: 69).

By the proposed law prepared according to made works after president’s expressing his sensitivity about the issue, “Institute of Turkish Revolution History” was founded subject to Ankara University Faculty of Language and History-Geography by 4204 numbered Law accepted by assembly on April 15, 1942. (Resmi Gazete, 1942 ) Together with this law the name of the course was changed as “Revolution History and the Regime of Turkish Republic” and curriculum programme of the course was approved to get prepared by ministry of national education. This institute was charged to collect every kind of document and information related to period beginning from the war of independence to the republic era, make scientific investigations and publications upon that period, prepare the programmes of “Revolution History and the Regime of Turkish Republic” courses in collaboration with Ministry of National Education and determine the lecturers for these courses (Aysal, 2004: 243 ) As per the law numbered 4204 a representative from The Republican People’s Party was determined to take place within the administrative

1_{The full name of the school was “Ankara Adliye Hukuk Mektebi”. The school was founded as a result of Mahmut Esat Bozkurt’s attempts on} November 5, 1925. Education in the school was started with 301 students of which 75 ones were boarders.

(3)

body of “Institute of Turkish Revolution History”. This situation rendered the institute incapable of working because of the transition to the multiparty system in 1946. Charging members for the institute in such a way continued for years and any change did not made until the date of September 12, 1980 (Aysal, 2004: 244).

Military mechanism which had taken possession of administration by the coup performed on May 27, 1960, took new decisions related to the course. Scientific Advisory Council of Institute of Turkish Revolution History took the decision about 1960 National Revolution Movement’s taking place within the context of curriculum programme as well in the meeting held on July 29, 1960 (Ero÷lu, 1990: 5). Additionally, the course was decided to be taught at faculties for two years and in colleges for one year. Scientific Advisory Council of Institute of Turkish Revolution History changed the name of the course as “History of Turkish Upheaval” on March 20, 1968. Same institute prepared a draft of law for the aim of adopting people to the course and making it more efficient by rearranging the goal, character and feature of the course on February 1, 1971. After the military coup on September 12, 1980 the name of the course was changed again as “Turkish Revolution History” by putting the word “Revolution” instead of “Upheaval”. The name of Turkish Revolution History course was revised as “Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution” by The Council of Higher Education, which had been founded connected with “The Law of Higher Education” numbered 2547 accepted in 1981 and this course was decided to be taught under this name as a compulsory lecture in higher education institutions (Resmi Gazete, 1981). According to the articles 4 and 5 of the law numbered 2547 the course was accepted as a compulsory lecture to be taught at all higher education institutions throughout all education period. By a revision made in 1990, the period of the course reduced to one year again and it took its current situation.

The Council of Higher Education has determined the basics of the lecture as such:

“1- Giving accurate information about Turkish War of Independence, Atatürk’s Revolutions and Principles, Kemalist thought, Turkish Republic,

2- Giving accurate information about the threats related to Turkey, Atatürk’s Revolutions and Principles, Kemalist thought,

3- Unifying Turkish youth together with their country, nation and state within an inseparable integrity and around national ideals in accordance with Atatürk’s Revolutions and Principles and also Kemalist thought,

4- Training and strengthening Turkish youth according to Kemalist thought.” (YÖK YayÕnlarÕ: 1986: 3).

2. Political Authority’s Outlook on The Lesson of Atatürk’s Principles and History of Revolution

Political authority has intervened in lesson as an internal controller from the period when the lesson of revolution history was begun to be taught with different names. Against Bolshevism in Russia, Fascism in Italy and Nazism ascending in Germany especially occurred after the political events of the period and found prejudicial by the political authority, the state did not approve to lose control and favored to get strength from its own history to redound the sense of being nation. When we evaluate the events according to place and time, the beginning control of the political authority can be evaluated as right.

State administration’s being an internal controller when there is a looking upon the events about the lesson can be understood easily. At the beginning, the lesson’s being given by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt the minister of justice, later the lesson’s being delegated to Minister of Education, Prime Minister øsmet ønönü’s giving the lesson of revolution history when he was the president of the republic, his touching on the lesson of revolution history in the course of setting up the assembly are significant examples in recognition of state’s dwelling on this subject. On the other hand, such an attitude towards the lesson caused the subject to gain a new dimension. øsmet ønönü’s being a soldier-origin politician and Mahmut Esat Bozkurt’s being a law-origin politician and revolution history lesson’s being given by both of them is the chief indicator of the soldier-law-politics triangle. However, each science’s reflecting its own vision to the subject brought about the process obstructing the convergence of soldier-law-politics and history sciences. While the multidisciplinary structure which inhere in revolution history was waited for its availing, each science’s reflecting its own vision posed a psychological conception presenting on the one hand a heterogeneous structure and on the other hand a homogenous structure.

(4)

the broadcast of these conferences are the evidence of its being not only a lesson. Political authority embarking on a public access lesson system, in such a way took advantage of propaganda and psychological manipulation response of mass communication, especially just as radios, on persons. In this sense, it is a stubborn fact that the political authority not only accepted the subject as a lesson just for teaching but also took the mission of civics in social meaning.

In historical process, state administration made a difference not only on curriculum but also on the name of lesson. The name of the lesson gradually takes its present name through History of Revolution, Revolution History and the Regime of Turkish Republic, History of Turkish Revolution. Military mechanism that took over state administration by coup d’état in 1960, made some arrangements on revolution history. The name of the lesson was changed as History of Turkish Revolution and some addings about new administration are appended to the curriculum. By 27th May 1960 coup d’état, National Revolution Movement was added to the curriculum of the lesson. In this way, military mechanism intervened in the lesson content. By 1980 coup d’état the name of the lesson changed once more. The lesson that had been given under the name of History of Turkish Revolution until that period, especially due to the word of “revolution” which is usually used by reds, was changed by political authority. Atatürk’s principles and History of Revolution was admitted as compulsory lesson in accordance with the Higher Education Law no 2547 in 1981, the book of Revolution History that was published by the Council of Higher Education and that is used by many universities today and drawing up curriculum intended for this lesson brought about the criticism in 1987. The council of Higher Education carried out the arrangement of publication and curriculum with the claim of being unitary and component. However, owing to the fact that universities were described as institution which have scientific-democratic and academic autarchy, this interference of the Council of Higher Education caused to the criticism. On the other hand, the article 7 of Lima Declaration adopted by World Association of Universities on 6-7th September 1988, is as below: “All members of the academia regarding education have the right of teaching without any interference but depending on the accepted principles, standards and methods of education.” It is quite clear that this article enfranchised right of self-government. Nevertheless, this decision is advisory not obligatory. Within the frame of all reviews, Atatürkist Thought System’s method of explaining- convincing and ultimatum in a democratic integrity occasionally took the shape of imposition as a consequence of the enforcements of political authority.

3. Conclusion and Suggestions

We come up against chief obstacles related to healthy teaching of the lesson such as contradiction in terms caused by interferences, not maintaining the standard in choosing instructor who will give the lesson of revolution history and not forming the lesson oriented a specific systematic.

The criticism of interference to academic autonomy, criticism of text editions on the ground that they include formal date and students’ considering the lesson chore in a prejudiced way are the other factors that raise the discommodity.

The lessons of revolution history began by the argument of promulgation of revolution idea to all segments of society during the early years of republic and the argument of integration with citizen were used by the purposes of authorized bodies in the course of time.

Several suggestions about the solution for overcoming these problems can be enumerated as below: x First of all, mentality which connects the course to internal politics should be avoided.

x Institutes of Revolution History should provide a professional guidance and support for the teaching process in the field.

x Necessary standards should be provided for training lecturers of the course.

x Attaining masses ready for learning the course is possible by making necessary infrastructure works before higher education for secondary education students.

x Rapid development in technology shouldn’t be ignored and utilizing from technologic components should be noticed. For instance, simulation systems for some events related to revolution history

(5)

can be prepared and the interests of students towards the course can be increased even outside the school by well designed computer games.

x By arranging systematic tour programmes to the places crucial for National Struggle, benefitting from visual and spatial intelligence should be resorted.

x By enriching textbooks in terms of visuality and increasing the numbers of photographs and caricatures would increase the interest towards textbooks.

x By bringing the copies of some archival resources to the class and by doing this giving the chance to students for investigating them would make a positive impact on efficiency.

As mentioned by Atatürk, our children and youth to be grown should be taught at first the necessity of struggle with the all components being enemy to independence of Turkey, their own personalities and national traditions (Atatürk, 1997: 49). The only way of doing this is dependent strongly upon recounting the philosophy of “Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution” course to all generations.

References

Aysal, N. (2004). Ankara Üniversitesi Türk ønkÕlâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Tarihçesi ve Geliúim Süreci, Ankara

Üniversitesi Turk InkÕlap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Vol.33-34, 241-263.

Atatürk, M.K, (1997), Söylev ve Demeçleri, Ankara: Türk ønkÕlap Tarihi Enstitüsü Publications. BaúbakanlÕk Cumhuriyet Arúivi, 030.10..142.13.4.

Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 21th June 1933.

Çapa, M. (2002). Cumhuriyet’in ølk YÕllarÕnda Tarih Ö÷retimi, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk ønkÕlâp Tarihi Enstitüsü

Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Vol.29-30, 39-55.

Ero÷lu, H. (1990), Türk ønkÕlap Tarihi, Ankara: Savaú Publications. Lima Bildirgesi, (AralÕk 2003), E÷itim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 88-93.

O÷uzo÷lu, H. C. (1966). Ankara Hukuk Fakültesi’nin Kuruluú ve ølk YÕllarÕ, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi

40.YÕl Arma÷anÕ, 1-52.

Oral, M. (2001), Turk InkÕlap Tarihi Enstitüsü (1933), Ankara Üniversitesi Türk InkÕlâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk

Yolu Dergisi, Vol.27-28, 322-333.

Özüçetin, Y. – Nadar, S. (2010), Atatürk ølkeleri ve ønkÕlâp Tarihi Dersinin Üniversiteler Düzeyinde Okutulmaya BaúlanmasÕ Gelinen Süreç, The Journal of International Social Research, Vol. 3/11, 466-477.

Resmi Gazete, 22th April 1942, No: 5090 and 6th November 1981 No:17506.

Taser, S. (2006), Cumhuriyet Döneminde Üniversite E÷itiminin Düzenlenmesi-1933 Üniversite Reformu ve Getirdikleri, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.

TBMM, (3.4.1942), ZabÕt Ceridesi, Ankara: Turkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi MatbaasÕ.

Yüksekö÷retim Kurulu YayÕnlarÕ. (1986), Atatürk ilkeleri ve ønkÕlap Tarihi I/1, Ankara: Yüksekö÷retim Kurulu MatbaasÕ.